Tag Archives: ultimately

This is our the best and the dearest, uh, patient who came to our clinic 20
——————————————————————
2
——————————————————————
2 years ago
——————————————————————
22 years ago
——————————————————————
and she was in the, she came with Hodgkin lymphoma, and a stage 4, and she didn’t have good, uh, prognosis
How long, did they tell you
——————————————————————They told me that I was gonna die, of non-Hodgkins lymphoma
That I had a fatal disease
They would treat me for awhile with, uh, chemotherapy and radiation, um, a bone marrow transplant, and, um, we, they, we would see what would happen, but no cureNot a cure at all
——————————————————————
So
——————————————————————
That was 22 years ago
Um, I thank God everyday that I found Dr. Burzynski’s clinic, and Dr. Burzynski and his staff
Um, I was on his treatment for, um, 3 months when this huge tumor on the side of my neck started to reduce and finally disappeared
——————————————————————
So we adopted her as our, uh, family
——————————————————————
(laughs)
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
and now, she is our family member, and many others
——————————————————————
So tell me, uh, how did you find out about Dr. Burzynski?
——————————————————————
I was in a cancer support group, and, uh, one of the ladies in there said, you know, you have non-Hodgkins lymphoma
There’s a doctor in Houston whose been treating it with very good results
You should go and check it out
Which I went back home to my husband and said: “There’s Dr. Burzynski in Houston, Texas, and he’s having good results,” and, ah, Steve said: “You know, I’ve heard of this doctor
You know, I wrote his name down”
He’d heard about him
Wrote his name down for future use, and I think about, uh, the next couple of days we were in Houston, and we got to the clinic and I just felt I was in the right place
Everybody there
It was
The feeling was so different than being at a UCLA or a USC or Dana Farber
It was just
I knew immediately I was in the right place, and I met Dr. Burzynski
Well first of all Dr. Barbara came out and hugged me, and, uh, it was, it was so wonderful and I’ll never forget the feeling of, of, uh, my first walk into the Burzynski Clinic
——————————————————————
So tell me, what did, uh, any, did, did you have an oncologist at home and tell them that you were coming here ?
——————————————————————
Yeah, we did
Um, uh, I had an oncologist at UCLA who was a lymphoma specialist, and he was the one that told me I would die of the disease
Um, when we told him that we were going to see Dr. Burzynski, he wasn’t, uh, overjoyed, to say the least, and he told us very negative things and, uh, but I thought, he wasn’t offering me anything, and, uh, when I did get to the Burzynski Clinic, Dr. Burzynski said to me: “I think I can help you,” he said
He didn’t
He didn’t tell me, he was going to cure me
He didn’t
He just said: “I think I can help you,” and, it was non-toxic, and the, um, conventional medicine was offering me high-dose chemotherapy, radiation, and in fact, in mu, as much radiation as people who were, uh, within one mile of ground zero at Hiroshima, and, and they were going to bring me as close to death as possible, and then, rescue me
Uh, and then Dr. Burzynski was going to do this and actually have, where actually I would have hope of a cure, non-toxically
My hair never fell out
I felt well
Um, I lead my normal life
I drove my kids to school
I cleaned the house
Whatever
You know
It was
It’s a wonderful treatment
——————————————————————
So, at what point did you realize, I’m free of cancer ?
Do you remember that point of ?
——————————————————————
Uh, well I remember the point
I remember it very well
Um, the, it
It’s so big
Um, I had, uh, several CAT scans
I had 2 CAT scans in a row
The first one that showed no cancer at all, and, um, I had them done at UCLA, and, um, and then I had a second one, 3 months later, and that one was, was absolutely clear
So, um, it was, it was an amazing feeling, and actually 48 hours was following me, because it was, it was a really a big story, um, you knowCancer throughout my body
No, no cancer at all and, and my medical records show, um, you look at my X-rays, my CAT scans, from starting Dr. Burzynski’s treatment, um, to approximately 9 months later
Reduction, reduction, reduction, until there was no cancer
——————————————————————
So what did, what did your oncologist say ?
Did you, did you go back to your oncologist and say: “You said I was gonna die”
——————————————————————
Uh, yes, we did that
——————————————————————
And what did he say ?
——————————————————————
And, and actually people would call him and a, people who were interested in Dr. Burzynski, and he would say: “Oh, she’s a spontaneous remission”
He would never accept the fact that I was treated, and cured by Dr. Burzynski, but my medical records prove it, and of, you know I, There are so many patients like me
I’m not the only one
So
——————————————————————
So ok, tell me
Let me ask you a couple more questions
——————————————————————
Mhmm
——————————————————————
What sort of a person do you think Dr. Burzynski is?
——————————————————————
Well aside from being the most wonderful, gentle, sensitive, caring doctor, and you don’t find many of those
I went to many doctors, while, while we were trying to find the answer
Many, and Dr. Burzynski is so above them
He, because he really makes you feel like a person, and that he cares, and, he’s also a genius
He, I know that he speaks about 8 languages
He’s an expert on the Bible
He, he just knows so much about everything
Um, I love to be in the room with him
He’s a very special man
——————————————————————
So, you recovered, and then, ’cause you, when did you set up the patient support group, and why did you do that ?
——————————————————————
Uh, actually my husband and I did that together, and it was during, um, the trials, uh, the Texas State Board started, in fact, I became a patient, and 2 months later, ah, he was brought to a hearing in front of the Texas State Medical Board, and so Steve and I, um, organized the patients to, um, be at that hearing to support Dr. B, ’cause he’d been going through this long before I became a patient, but, um, we wanted to show support, because I was already starting to fe, I was feeling better already
I was already seeing some reduction, and now my, the medicine was in jeopardy
I, It could be taken away from me at any time
So we decided to organize the patients and to show support, and all the patients wanted to help, a, uh, obviously
So, um, we’d go to every hearing, every, uh, the trial, we were there every day, um, and we would, patients would march in front of the court building, um,
It was, it was really a sight
An unbelievable sight
——————————————————————
And why do you think that he was treated the way that he was treated ?
Why do you think they wanted to take him down ?
——————————————————————
I think it’s because
There’s many reasons
I think the main reason is because what Dr. Burzynski does is making what all other conventional doctors are doing wrong, because chemotherapy is not the answerChemotherapy makes people sick, and, uh, most of the time it does not cure people
Um, all that poison and radiation
There’s gotta be a better way, and there is a better wayDr. Burzynski has found it
I was sick
I had cancer 22 years ago
Um, my hair never fell out, and, uh, it was a treatment that I was grateful to be on every day
——————————————————————
So how many patients have you come in contact with that Dr. Burzynski
——————————————————————
Hundreds
Hundreds, and as you say by my patient group web-site
Um, I think I have about 90 stories on there now, and there are many more, because, um, I haven’t been able to get in touch with everybody, but over the years, uh, people give me their stories
Sometimes people will call me, um, but we, we are a patient group because we, we’ve all been helped or cured by Dr. Burzynski, and we, we want everybody to have access to this treatment

Steve actually had the chance to ask one of, uh, one of the prosecutors, um, at the trial, that exact question: “What would you do,” and he was prosecuting Dr. Burzynski, and he actually said: “I’d be first in line”
So, once you know the whole story, and you know the science, and you, especially if you do the research, um, you, you can come to the truth, and the truth is, Dr. Burzynski, has cured cancer
He cured me
I’ve been in remission for, in remission, for, uh, 22 years, and that’s a cure, and, uh, he could help so many, many, many more people
The, he has breast cancer patients now that are, that are doing so well
He has many
I just talked to an ovarian cancer patient
He has, um, all, all different types of cancers
What he needs is funding from our government
Um, all other doctors and, and, um, institutions, they get ah, mu, get so much money from the governmentDr. Burzynski doesn’t get one penny
If we could just think
If, d, if the government would just fund Dr. Burzynski, he could have a cure for all cancers
I believe that with all my heart, and somehow, some day this has to happen
——————————————————————The Sceptics (10:37)
——————————————————————
Yeah, just tell me what this whole kind of skeptic movement
You do any research on Dr. Burzynski there’s a few things
——————————————————————
Yes
——————————————————————
that always come up
This guy Saul
——————————————————————Saul Green
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
Mmm
——————————————————————
and some other stuff
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
So just tell me
What’s that all about and where did that all come from ?
——————————————————————
It stems from, uh, a lawsuit that was filed against, uh, Dr. Burzynski
Actually it was, uh, an insurance company, that didn’t wanna pay for, uh, for the treatment
A particular patient had been treated here in Texas, uh, was put into remission
Was successfully treated and then it turns out the insurance company did not wanna pay for it, so they brought in these people
These quote unquote expertsCancer experts of, you know, rather dubious backgrounds
This is all that they do, is they look for ways to demean people
They look for ways to blacken their reputation
They ultimately became a group known as Quack watch, and these were brought in as the expert witnesses to say that this is not an approved treatment, albeit, was not true
They said the treatment didn’t work and clearly it did, and, uh, they have since gotten funding from insurance companies, from the government, private funding, and they go around to debunk things that are against mainstream, um, medicine, and, uh, their, their support comes from the insurance company and from the pharmaceutical companies who benefit from, from their work, and, uh, it expanded
Expanded all over the world to, uh, they’re in the United States, they’re in the U.K., they’re in Australia, and, uh, they have a very big presence
When the internet came into being they, you know, they went viral with this kind of stuff
So when you type in Burzynski, uh, a lot of the negative comes up first
So that’s the first thing you see is all this negative stuff, and it’s all hearsay
None of it has any basis in fact
It’s all lies
Um, you know, he, Dr. Burzynski never did anything illegal ever, and it was all based on, on very questionable legal grounds that he was ever sued, that he was, that any case was ever brought against him by the FDA or the Texas Medical Board, and all of those cases failed
They never held up to scrutiny
They all failed, and here Dr. Burzynski is today, and he’s thriving, and people come here from all over the world to be treated
Many are cured of their cancers, and, uh, all of these people in the Quack watch are gone
Uh, Saul Green has passed away
Uh, I don’t wish him ill, but I’m glad he’s not here, thank you, and all of these other people are gone and they’re not thriving, and they’re just like, you know, they’re like bacteria or like fungus under rocks, and when you shine a light on them, they can’t hold up to the scrutiny
The real light is here
The real truth is here in Houston at the Burzynski Clinic
——————————————————————Thoughts onDr. Burzynski(13:46)
——————————————————————
What do you think of Dr. Burzynski, yourself ?
——————————————————————
I, I, I think Mary Jo’s pretty much summed it up
Uh, I, am of course
It, it, it’s not an unbiased opinion
It can’t be
He’s the man that saved my wife
Uh, she was cast off, um, as, as, as an incurable
She was told time and time again, not just by her on, oncologist at UCLA, Dr. Peter Rosen, but we went all over the country
We went to USC in, University of Southern California, UCLA, Stanford Medical, Dana-Farber; which is associated with Harvard, uh, in, uh, Boston, and everywhere we went, she was told: “There’s no hope”
“You’re gonna die”
“It’s just a matter of time”
“We have to see how long, how long it’s gonna take”
Um, against my better wishes, we came to the Burzynski Clinic, and she said: “I’m starting today,” and I said: “Don’t you think we should go back and discuss with Dr. Rosen at UCLA ?
She said: “No, they have nothing to offer me”
She was that brave, and we started that day, and we’ve never looked, we’ve never looked back
So to ask me about what I think about Dr. Burzynski, when my wife was told she was gonna die, and I was already making plans for how am I going to take care of my children without Mary Jo; my life partner, and he saved her life, I’m not gonna give you unbiased
——————————————————————
Mhmm
——————————————————————
an unbiased opinion of how I feel about the man
There’s probably nobody, that I have greater love and greater respect for, uh, in, in the whole world, and, uh, to add about how, how smart, how intelligent this man is, ah, expert on, on history as Barbara was saying
Expert on religion
He’s an expert on mushrooms
He knows more about mushrooms than any 10 mushroom experts in the world
Bees
He knows about bees
Who cares about bees, but he knows everything, because bees happen to be a rich production source of antineoplastons
Who knew ?Dr. Burzynski knew, and that’s why we need to listen to him
We as a society
The world needs to listen to this man
——————————————————————Conventional Cancer Treatment and The FDA (16:05)
——————————————————————
When you put some critical thought, critical analysis, you find that chemotherapy initially works
What it is, it’s a good, the first time around it’s a good tumor shrinking, they’re good tumor shrinking agents, but over the long run they create so many problems that eventually, the tumor becomes, the cells become resistant and the tumor takes over, or, if it is successful in shrinking the tumor to, to a, a size where the patient can survive, what happens after that is there’s a secondary cancer that’s created by the chemotherapy, with very few exceptionsTesticular cancer is one exception where it works
Some childhood leukemia’s they’ve had some great success with chemotherapy, but by in large it’s a failed modality, and the side effects are so bad as, as to be called horrific, uh, is how I would describe them from what I’ve seen in, in my family and in my friends, and my associates that’ve had to undergo it
So why do we allow that, when something like antineoplastons and Burzynski’s treatment, totally non-toxic, working with the body, allowing you to lead a normal life, and on it statistically for the number of people that have been treated, uh, compared to the number of people that have walked out of here in remission, or cured after 5 years; whatever definition you wanna use, we don’t allow that
We look at that as, uh, conventional medicine looks at like that as, looks at that as some sort of quackery
This is, this is, uh, critical thinking and science turned on its head, and it doesn’t make sense, and it goes back to what I was saying before
Why it doesn’t make sense, because there’s entrenched financial interests, and there’s a paradigm that says we do for cancer, we do chemotherapy, we do radiation, we do surgery, and that’s it
Anything else is not acceptable, because it goes against the paradigm

In the bureaucracy we know as the FDA
We’ve been fighting them for so long and they’ve been described as “The B Team”“The B Team” is,that they be here when you come in and you start complaining, your problem starts, they be here, and when you decide to quit complaining because you’ve beat your head against the wall for so many years, they still be here (laugh)
So it’s “The B Team”
They’re bureaucrats
This is what they do
There, they have a certain set of tasks
Certain things that they’re tasked with
Protection of the food and drug supply of the United States, whatever that means
Whatever they deem it to mean
Whatever they decide it means
That’s what they’re gonna do, and it’s pretty hard to fight that
It’s pretty hard, unless you have a political, unless you have a, a, a, a political, ah, constituency, and you can put a lot of pressure on them
——————————————————————
So
——————————————————————
and that’s the only way
——————————————————————
So what’s the answer ?
What will, uh
How will Dr. Burzynski prevail ?
——————————————————————
Ultimately, in, in my, in my, in my view, the real tragedy is, is that he’s not going to prevail here in the United States
It’s going to be extremely difficult
It’s an uphill battle that, knowing Dr. Burzynski, he’s gonna keep fighting it, uh, and, and he’ll keep fighting that battle, but the real opportunity for him is to, uh, move this product and license it overseas, and, uh, other countries are interested
Other countries are more open, uh, to new modalities
They’re not entrenched, uh, and don’t have the financial, uh, interests, the, that are, the entrenched financial interests like we do here, like chemotherapy and, and, uh, radiation therapy, and I think that’s where ultimately we as Americans, as sad as it is, are going to have to go overseas to be treated and to get this medication

The FDA is so capricious in their decision-making, and in their exception granting, uh, that if Pat had AIDS, and this was anti-AIDS medication; proven or not or only with limited, uh, proven efficaciousness, uh, and proven limited proof that it was somewhat non-toxic, she would be able to get approval like that
The FDA has taken a drug approval process that generally takes anywhere from 10 to 15 years, and where there is political, successful political pressure applied, they have reduced that down to some cases 4 to 8 months as in the case of the anti-HIV drugs, and that’s because there is a very strong, very powerful political lobby in Washington, and throughout the country, and they have been able to apply pressure at key points in, uh, CongressCongress puts that pressure on the FDA, says: “C’mon let’s get the ball forward
These are voting people
We have millions of people in this country with HIV who are compacted together and make a viable political force
Let’s move forward”
In the case of multiple-myeloma
In the case of these cancers or these people that wanna be treated, who have failed all conventional therapy, and wanna be treated by Dr. Burzynski with something that we know works
Something that is, is non-toxic, they, they don’t have
We’re not a viable political force
We’re not important to the Washington bureaucrats, to the Washington lawmakers
So nothing gets done, and these exceptions for the use of antineoplastons are not granted, and that’s, that’s the sad truth
======================================
Steve and Mary Jo Siegel
January 2012
22:01
11/9/2012
——————————————————————
======================================

[WP:SOP]“Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)

Due & undue weight: [3]

“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”

[WP:NPOV]“History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)

(Neutral Point of View)
——————————————————————TRANSLATION: Wikipedia editors, YOUR OPINION IS NOT RELEVANT
——————————————————————MEANING: It is meaningless to attempt to slather your biased OPINION all over Wikipedia like butter on Texas toast, since supposedly, we only care about verifiable FACTS
======================================
Wikipedia, what the problem is ?

Jimmy Donal Wales

Who ?

No, “The Who” is actually really British!

(as opposed to some “furreigner” who plops across the pond, wants to pound one of your pelts after a celebrity hunt, pops it in his bonnet, pip-pips about, and mounts it up on his rented wall along with what’s left of his balls)

I’m writing, of course, about “Jimbo,” the one who got away . . . Thankfully

The recipient of the write-up earlier this year in The New York Times[1] (Oh, pithy!!)
——————————————————————Wales, who no longer runs the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia

“He applies his libertarian worldview to the Internet and has taken on institutions like the United States government“
——————————————————————
You must be bloody well rightjoking me

(joking me ? Quit jokin’ me !)

JimCrow’s ’bout as “libertarian” as Fidel Castrowith a gun in his hand and (f)lies between his teeth; from traveling with the windows down

Stephen Colbert shoulda seen that comin’ from a 8 mile away

Hey Stephen, Report’ THAT !!!
——————————————————————“He grew up in Huntsville, Ala., the son of a teacher and a retail man“
——————————————————————
And obviously, he didn’t “learnt” well

I think a refund’s in order

And here’s your free school Insolence to go with it

Happy eat in’

It is claimed that “HE” spends time:
——————————————————————“traveling the world giving talks on free speech and Internet freedom“
——————————————————————
seriously ?

Seriously ??

SERIOUSLY ???

Welcome to MizFitTV

What would “Jymboree” know about “free speech” and “Internet freedom,“ anyway ?

How many days did you serve your country in the United States military ?

Oh, you did NOT realize that while you were in San Diego, you could have signed that contract ?

After all, he’s no Vincent Kennedy McMahon”(“HE” knows where “HIS”GRAPEFRUITS are)
======================================“B.D.F.L., or the Benevolent Dictator for Life”
——————————————————————
How ’bout:

BigDisappointingFascistLoser ?
——————————————————————“Argumentum ad Jimbonem” means dutifully following what Wales says, but there are even arguments about that”
——————————————————————WP:NICETRY, but that’s “SHEEPLE”
——————————————————————“One Wikipedia editor said, for instance, that Wales was no longer comfortable with the B.D.F.L. description”
——————————————————————Jiminy Cricket!

Whazzamatta Jiminy?

Did “FASCIST” hit a bit too close to home ?
——————————————————————“(There is, among some, a debate over what to call him)”

“Some users have also disputed the Latinized version of “Jimbo.”“

“(Should it be “Jimboni” or “Jimbini”?)”
——————————————————————Can you smell what “The Rock” is cookin’ ?

“This is a statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then”
——————————————————————(Or if you go by The New York Times article, [1] Jimbroni is the “co-founder” who tries to re-write history to make it appear that “HE” is the one-and-onlyFascist Founder ?)
——————————————————————
“I should point out that these are my principles, such that I am the final judge of them”

“This does not mean that I will not listen to you, but it does mean that at some ultimate, fundamental level, this is how Wikipedia will be run”
——————————————————————No, actually, it DOES mean that he will NOT listen to you, as was the case when he ignored my 2/7/2013 appeal

In his defense, perhaps Kate Garvey has his balls
——————————————————————Principles

1. “Wikipedia’s success to date is entirely a function of our open community”

“This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing”

“Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the neutral point of view policy and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty”
——————————————————————
The problem with this Wacky Tobacky“We are the (Wiki) World”WikiWhOReD Wonderland Jimbroni’s living in, is that “HE” has NOT been Doing The Right Thing since “HE”abdicated “his”“neutral point of view policy” and “culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty,” to “The Skeptics”

“The Skeptics,” who serve as gatekeepers of the Burzynski Clinic article, and who cite Dr. David H. Gorski a/k/a “Orac” aka GorskGeekas if he were a “reliable source”

“The Skeptics,” who bring new meaning to the term“Wikipedia Zero”

“The Skeptics,” who are Intellectual Cowards like their falsegodGorski, the Closet Communist of Science-Based Medicine a/k/a Science-Basted Medicine aka Science-Based Mudicine(Spinning Bowel Movement), WikiWordsmith Wannabes, nut-jobbers, stale from their failure at the National Peanut Festival in Dothan, Alabama
——————————————————————
3. ““You can edit this page right now” is a core guiding check on everything that we do”

“We must respect this principle as sacred”
——————————————————————
Do the lies just dribble off your chin like phlegm?

You canNOT just go in and “edit” the Burzynski Clinic article “page right now”

That statement is pure, unadulteratedAlabamaB.S.

That’s NOT a “sacred principle,” it’s sacré “bull”
——————————————————————
7. “Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity”
——————————————————————
Unfortunately, you do NOT practice what you preach, do you, HYPOCRITE ?
——————————————————————“They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way”
——————————————————————
So that you can ignore the problem(s), right, Jimbroni ?
——————————————————————“Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, should simply be rejected and ignored”
——————————————————————THAT would automatically exclude all of “The Skeptics” now, wouldn’t it ?
——————————————————————
“We must not let the “squeaky wheel” be greased just for being a jerk”
——————————————————————Jimbroni, why have you allowed “The Skeptics” to choose from their “squeaky” wheel-house bag o’ tricks, get all “greased” up and jerk” so many people around in such a big CIRCLE-JERK, for so long?
——————————————————————
8. “Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness”

“Both are objectively valuable moral principles”

“Be honest with me, but don’t be mean to me”

“Don’t misrepresent my views for your own political ends, and I’ll treat you the same way”
——————————————————————“Honesty” and “politeness” are really great “buzzwords,” Jimbroni, but they are as foreign to your “Skeptics,” as “moral principles”
——————————————————————
A great example of the questionable“honesty” and “moral principles” of one of your apparatchiks, was demonstrated 2/3/2013, 6:56, when I sent an arbitration appeale-mail to Wikipedia, advising, in part, that the e-mail listed on Wikipedia; as the one that blocked users should use, did NOT work, because there was NO “@” sign in it

There was a . (period) where the “@” sign belonged
——————————————————————

“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Check the “time” and “place” where you are, so that you, too, can advise, that according to Wikipedia, pointing out to them that the e-mail they advise people to use, DOES NOT WORK; because there is no “@” sign in it (instead, there’s a . (period)), translates into meaning:
——————————————————————“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
======================================Core principles

Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset [WP:SR]

Wikipedia does not have its own views, or determine what is “correct”
——————————————————————
I wish I could LIE like that, but I have a conscience
======================================12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) –
“We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”

[User Talk:JzG|Guy] ([User JzG/help|Help!]) [2]

——————————————————————“Bullshit movie” ?
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Does anyone other than me NOT think it a “coinkydink” that some “Guy” on Wikipedia, going by the name “Guy”, using the same 2 words (“Bullshit movie”) as a “Guy” on Twitter ?
======================================
2. Founding principles:

“Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone”
——————————————————————
Especially when Jimbroni allows “The Skeptics”
to “dictator” the “rules”
——————————————————————
“The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule”

“The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both”

“This means that any rule can be broken for a very good reason, if it ultimately helps to improve the encyclopedia”
——————————————————————
And “The Skeptics” are NOT required to provide ANY reason for having broken “any rule”
——————————————————————
“It doesn’t mean that anything can be done just by claiming IAR, or that discussion is not necessary to explain one’s decision”
——————————————————————
But do NOT expect Wikipedia to require anything from The Skeptics”
——————————————————————Founding principles

1. “Neutral point of view (NPOV) as a mandatory editorial principle”
—————————————————————–EXCEPT when it comes to the Burzynski Clinic article
——————————————————————12/26/2012 – I attempted to get Wikipedia to reference the interview which Burzynski’s attorney, Richard (Rick) A. Jaffe, and Lola Quinlan’s attorney; who posted it on his web-site, had given: [4]

Thank you very much.[[User: Didymus Judas Thomas 15:03, 12/26/2012 (UTC)
——————————————————————So? [OR] Disputing it in the media probably means he doesn’t have a case. [/OR] In any case, a lawyer disputing the allegations against his client is not even news. — [[User: Arthur Rubin 15:24, 12/26/2012 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, I’m not sure what relevance your above post has re WP:NPOV since the articleincludes statements from attorneys representing both sides

17:51, 12/27/2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas

======================================12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”

[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([User JzG/help|Help!])

“Nobody else is doing meaningful work on it” ?

Ignores independent research done in Poland, Russia, Korea, Egypt, Japan, & China which specifically reference SRB’s publications in their publications re antineoplastons & phenylacetylglutamine (PG); which is AS2-5, & includes phase III trials published in China & continued research being published in China 12/17/2012?

Steve Pereira (SilkTork) is such a “WIPOCRITE,” that he claims:
——————————————————————“the community were united that your contributions were biased”
——————————————————————
He conveniently; like a good little mini-Jimbroni would, ignores ALL of his fellow WIPOCRITES comments, which completely ignored:
——————————————————————([WP:SOP]“Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)

Due & undue weight: [3]

“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”

[WP:NPOV]“History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)

(Neutral Point of View)
——————————————————————
1. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) – “We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”
——————————————————————
2. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”
——————————————————————
3. 12/26/2012, Wednesday – 12:43 – “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynskicontinues with his unethical practices.”
——————————————————————
4. 12/30/2012 8:58 “The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at worst a quack…”?
——————————————————————
Am I NOT the only one convinced that “the community” was also “united” in something more than just their “goose-stepping ?
——————————————————————Pereira, the imperfect‘pedia Pimp tries to Wow his readers by waxing WikiWhOReD, by ignoring that ALL the previous BIASED opinion B.S. that his fellow-Facist forged ahead with, and which Wikipediantic history says means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (say it again) because it is their BIASED OPINION and is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS, and it was as so much WikiLitter, well, he’s just facist-free speechless about that, as any Jimbroni AstroTurf Twerk should be
======================================
To show exactly what zealots these WikiPimps are, just absorb this exchange:
——————————————————————
“The Burzynski Clinic Article has:

“…a Mayo Clinic study found no benefit….”

But that was not what the study concluded

See below:
——————————————————————“CONCLUSION:

Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
——————————————————————
In the interest of Neutrality, please remove the reference to Mayo entirely or change to;
——————————————————————“…a Mayo Clinic study found that “the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
——————————————————————
Thank you very much

Didymus Judas Thomas 21:12, 12/10/2012
——————————————————————
“How is “found no benefit” not a a fair and pithy description of the Mayo Clinic study’s summary?”

Alexbrn 21:24, 12/10/2012
——————————————————————“I feel this should be changed under WP:NPOV because not every reader is going to understand the “Fair & Pithy” reason I was provided

I feel that the average reader reading this will read it as meaning a study was done & completed with the necessary # of people for an effective study, when that was not the conclusion as pointed out in my above post

“NO RESPONSE” from the “mini-b”(a/k/a “mini-brain”), wannabe Fascists who are so zealous about using their alleged“Fair and Pithy” “found no benefit” WikiWhOReD; which they utilize in an effort to deceive those who are NOTsmarter than a fifth-grader

These WikiPimps are so certain of the righteousness of their evangelical cause, that they do NOT even have the “GRAPEFRUITS” to use what the study’s conclusions actually said, and let the chips fall where they may

Wikipediantic, why don’t you list all the dates and times I was supposedly doing all of these activities; and don’t forget to include all the time I spent blogging, on Twitter, making comments on articles, etc., and once you have all that data compiled, explain how one individual could do all that in a 24-hour day

======================================GlaxoSmithKline======================================$3 BILLION——————————————————————7/2/2012——————————————————————(4/1998 – 8/2003)
——————————————————————United StatesallegesGSKparticipated inpreparing
publishing
distributingmisleading medical journal article that misreported that clinical trial of drug demonstrated efficacy in treatment when study failed to demonstrate efficacy
——————————————————————
At same time, United Statesalleges, GSKdidn’t make available data from 2 other studies in which drug also failed to demonstrate efficacy
——————————————————————(2001 – 2007)
——————————————————————United StatesallegesGSKfailed to include certain safety data about drug in reports to FDA meant to allow FDA to determine if drug continues to be safe for approved indications and to spot drug safety trends
——————————————————————missing information included data regarding certain post-marketing studies
——————————————————————data regarding 2 studies undertaken in response to European regulators’ concerns about safety of drug
——————————————————————United StatesallegesGSKstated drug had positive cholesterol profile despite having no well-controlled studies to support that message======================================

======================================Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and subsidiaries, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Scios Inc.
Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, L.P.======================================$2.2 BILLION +——————————————————————11/4/2013, Monday——————————————————————Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Janssen
——————————————————————complaint allegesJ&J and Janssen were aware drug posed serious health risks, but companies downplayed these risks
——————————————————————
For example, whenJ&Jstudy of drug showed significant risk of strokes and other adverse events in patients, complaint alleges Janssencombined study data with other studies to make it appear there was lower overall risk of adverse events
——————————————————————year afterJ&Jreceived results of 2nd study confirming increased safety risk for patients taking drug, but hadn’t published data, one physician who worked on study cautionedJanssen
——————————————————————“[a]t this point, so long after [the study] has been completed … we must be concerned that this gives the strong appearance that Janssen is purposely withholding the findings.”
——————————————————————complaint allegesJanssenknew patients taking drug had increased risk, but nonetheless promoted drug as “uncompromised by safety concerns”
——————————————————————WhenJanssenreceived initial results of studies indicating drug posed same risk as other antipsychotics, complaint alleges company retained outside consultants to re-analyze study results and ultimately published articles stating drug was actually associated with lower risk
——————————————————————J&J and another of its subsidiaries, Scios Inc.
——————————————————————8/2001 – FDA approved drug to treat patients with acutely decompensated congestive heart failure who have shortness of breath at rest or with minimal activity
——————————————————————approval based on study involving hospitalized patients experiencing severe heart failure who received infusions of drug over average 36-hour period
——————————————————————complaint allegedScioshad no sound scientific evidence supporting medical necessity of outpatient infusions and misleadingly used small pilot study to encourage serial outpatient use of drug======================================

======================================Abbott Laboratories Inc.======================================$1.5 BILLION——————————————————————5/7/2012, Monday——————————————————————(2001 – 2006)
——————————————————————
company marketed drug in combination with atypical antipsychotic drugs even after its clinical trials failed to demonstrate adding drug was any more effective than atypical antipsychotic alone for that use
——————————————————————1999 – forced to discontinue clinical trial of drug due to increased incidence of adverse events, including
somnolence
dehydration
anorexiaexperienced by study participants administered drug
——————————————————————funded 2 studies of use of drugboth failed to meet main goals established for the study
——————————————————————When 2nd study failed to show statistically significant treatment difference between antipsychotic drugs used in combination with drug and antipsychotic drugs alone, waited nearly 2 years to notify sales force about study results and another 2 years to publish results======================================

======================================AstraZeneca LP / AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP======================================$520 MILLION——————————————————————4/27/2010, Tuesday——————————————————————engaged doctors to conduct studies on unapproved uses of drug
——————————————————————recruited doctors to serve as authors of articles that were ghostwritten by medical literature companies and about studies doctors in question didn’t conduct
——————————————————————then usedstudies
articlesas basis for promotional messages aboutunapproved uses of drug======================================REFERENCE:======================================11/26/2013 – United States Department of Justice (DOJ) versus BIG Pharma: BIG Pharma fought the law, and the law won ?:
——————————————————————https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/united-states-department-of-justice-versus-big-pharma-big-pharma-fought-the-law-and-the-law-won/
======================================

“Uhmmm, hi everyone”
——————————————————————0:48:00
——————————————————————0:53:00
——————————————————————BB – “A every time that I and and and and, and David (James @StortSkeptic the Skeptic Canary) points this out, that um, you you know you’re not going to speculate about the the FDA but then at every turn you’re invoking the FDA as being obstructionist“
——————————————————————0:54:02
——————————————————————BB – “I, I just find that to be contradictory and and self-defeating“
======================================DJT – Bob, exactly where did I invoke “the FDA as being obstructionist” ?
======================================1:02:00
——————————————————————BB – “Um, it’s it’s it’s not the FDA’s, but you understand it’s not the FDA’s job to tell someone that their drug doesn’t work“
——————————————————————1:03:00
——————————————————————BB – “it’s it’s it’s up to Burzynski“

Oh, and Bob, exactly when did Burzynski 1st claim “this miracle cancer cure” ?
======================================1:04:02
——————————————————————BB – “Um, that we’d love to see, however we can’t see, however we can’t see it because of proti protri proprietary uh protections that the FDA is giving to Burzynski, right ?”

“They’re not sharing his trial designs because they are his trial designs, right ?”

“That the makeup of his drug that he’s distributing are his, uh design, and his intellectual property“

“So the FDA is protecting him, uh from outside scrutiny“
======================================DJT – Bob, you make it sound like it’s part of some grand “conspiracy” between Burzynski and the FDA to keep information from “The Skeptics™” [3]
——————————————————————
21CFR601

Subpart F–Confidentiality of Information

Sec. 601.50

Confidentiality of data and information in an investigational new drug notice for a biological product

(a) The existence of an IND notice for a biological product will not be disclosed by the Food and Drug Administration unless it has previously been publicly disclosed or acknowledged
======================================BB – “While you may imagine that that, that that the FDA is is somehow antagonistic toward him“

“They’ve given him every opportunity, over 60 opportunities to prove himself worth uh their confidence and hasn’t“
======================================DJT – Bob, that certainly explains the 9/3/2004 and .10/30/2008 ODD’s and phase 3 clinical trial approvals by the FDA – NOT [1-2]
======================================1:05:00
——————————————————————1:42:00
——————————————————————BB – “I don’t, the thing is though that, that that’s a inver, shifting the burden of proof off of Burzynski”

“Burzynski has to prove them wrong, has to prove him right”

“The FDA is not there to say this doesn’t work”
======================================DJT – Bob, who initiated and put into place the clinical trial hold ?

Burzynski ?

FDA ?

Both ?
======================================1:43:30
——————————————————————BB – “So, I mean, honestly, um, saying “Well, when the F, FDA tells you that it doesn’t work, the FDA’s never gonna say that because that’s not their job“
——————————————————————1:44:00
——————————————————————BB – “That’s not an option, because they’re never gonna do it“

“They relinquish, a lot of authority, over to Burzynski, and his Institutional Review Board, which, I would mention, has failed 3 reviews in a row”======================================Bob, where are the “final reports” for those “3 reviews” ?======================================BB – “Right ?”

“It is Burzynski’s job to be convincing”

“It is not our uh, uh, it it it he hasn’t produced in decades“

“In decades”

“In hundreds and hundreds of patients, who’ve payed to be on this”

“Hell, we’d we’d we’d like a prelim, well when you’re talking about something that is so difficult as brainstem glioma, that type of thing gets, really does in the publishing stream get fast-tracked there”
======================================DJT – Bob, Burzynski has provided numerous phase 2 clinical trial preliminary reports, which our #fave oncologist has chosen to ignore [4]
======================================BB – “they test it”

“Yeah, and they they they want uh, that was evidence of fast-tracking is what, that rejection was uh e was very quickly“
======================================DJT – Bob, have you checked The Lancet Oncology [5] to see what was so much more important than Burzynski’s “phase 2 clinical trial Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) re patients 8 – 16 years after diagnosis, results” [6] and the Japanese antineoplaston study ? [7]
======================================BB – “So, how long will it be before Burzynski doesn’t publish, that you decide that uh perhaps he’s he‘s, doesn’t have the goods ?“

“Um, so, uh, uh again, the FDA is not the arbiter of this“

“It’s ultimately Burzynski”

“You’ve been speculating about what the FDA’s motivation are like crazy”

“Why not speculate about Burzynski a little bit”
======================================DJT – Well, how have I been speculating ?
======================================1:46:00
——————————————————————BB – “Well actually I’m not even asking you to speculate about Burzynski, I’m only asking you to tell me, how long would it take, uh how, for him to go unpublished like this, um, for this long, before you would doubt it ?”======================================DJT – Note how, above, without proving it, Bob claimed “at every turn you’re invoking the FDA as being obstructionist”, and now, directly above, again, without proving it, Bob claims “You’ve been speculating about what the FDA’s motivation are like crazy”——————————————————————DJT – what the journals keep saying, in response
======================================BB – “What ?”
======================================DJT – You know, are they going to give The Lancet response, like they did in 2 hours and such, saying, “Well, we think your message would be best heard elsewhere,”or they gonna gonna give The Lancet response of, “Well, we don’t have room in our publication this time, well, because we’re full up, so, try and pick another place”?
======================================BB – “But these but but but that doesn’t have any bearing on“

“That doesn’t”

“Oh I’m not asking you how long, how long, would it take you for you to start doubting whether or not he has the goods ?“

“How long would it take ?”

“It’s a it’s a it’s a question that should be answered by a number uh uh months ?“

“Years ?”

“How long ?”

“It’s been 15 years already”
======================================DJT – Well, you like to jump up and down with the “15 year” quote, but then again I always get back to, Hey, it’s when, when the report, when the clinical trial is done
——————————————————————1:47:06
——————————————————————DJT – Not that he’s been practicing medicine medicine for 36 years, or whatever, it’s when the clin, clinical trial was done
======================================BB – “I could push it back to 36 years”

“He hasn’t shown that it works for 36 years”

“I can do that”

“I was being nice”======================================DJT – Note how Bob acts like he’s been hit with “The Stupid Stick”

If he wants to go back “36 years”, I can refer back to 1991 (11/15/1991) – Michael J. Hawkins, M.D., Chief, Investigational Drug Branch, Department of Health &Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI), sent a 1 page Memorandum Re:
Antineoplaston to Decision Network, which advised, in part:

“It was the opinion of the site visit team that antitumor activity was documented in this best case series and that the conduct of Phase II trials was indicated to determine the response rate”[8]——————————————————————DJT – The FDA A believes there is evidence of efficacy
======================================BB – “Perhaps based on bad phase 2”
======================================DJT – Well, we don’t know that

We don’t have the Freedom of Information Act information——————————————————————DJT – Remember, Bob is the one who told me during the 9/28/2013 Google+ Burzynski Discussion Hangout:

“You’re you’re you’re assuming”

“You’re you’re you’re assuming that”

“You’re assuming that”

“Um, I’m not assuming that”

“There is a correct answer here”

“You don’t know”

“You don’t know”

“You need to look into it”

“Alright ?”

“Before you dismiss it you have to look into it”

“Everytime somebody throws uh uh something to me,I have to look into it”

“That’s just, it’s my responsibility as a reader”

“T t and what I would honestly expect and hope, is that you would be honest about this, to yourself, and and and that’s the thing we don’t, we often don’t realize that we’re not being honest with ourself“

“I try to fight against it, constantly”

Bob just ASSUMED that the FDA approved phase 3 clinical trials for Burzynski “Perhaps based on bad phase 2”, but tells me NOT to ASSUME ?======================================BB – “He withdrew”

“He withdrew the the phase 3 clinical trial”

“I that before recruiting,
although I’ve seen lots of people say they were on a phase 3 clinical trial“

“I wonder how that happened”
======================================DJT – Well, we know what happened in the movie because Eric particularly covered that when they tried to get what, what, was it 200 or 300 something institutions to take on a phase 3, and they refused
======================================1:48:01
——————————————————————BB – “Uh did do do you think that if they thought that he was a real doctor that they all would have refused like that ?“
======================================DJT – Well, Eric gave the reasons that they said they would not take a particular uh phase 3

And so using that excuse that you you just gave there, I’m not even gonna buy that one, because that’s not one of the reasons——————————————————————Note how Bob pulls out the old “if they thought that he was a real doctor” line ?

Is Bob now claiming that Burzynski is NOT even a “real doctor” ?======================================BB – “He’s changed things”
======================================DJT – Eric said they gave
======================================BB – “That The Lancet is a top-tier journal like New England Journal of Medicine“

“Um, it’s just, you know, let’s say he, someone has such a thin publishing record as Burzynski does, do you think that it’s likely that he will ever get in a top-tier journal ?“

“What about the the Public Library of Science?”

“It’s not the only journal there”

“What about BMC Cancer ?”

“There’s lots of places that he can go”
======================================DJT – We’ll I’m
======================================BB – “Um, and he doesn’t seem to to have evailed himself of that, as far as I can tell“

“And I would know because he’d get rejected, or he’d be crowing, you know”
——————————————————————1:49:02
——————————————————————BB – “Either way, he’s gonna tell us what happens”

“He told us what happened with The Lancet, you know”

“I don’t have any evidence that suggests to me that he’s even trying”======================================Note how Bob refers to Burzynski’s numerous publications as “such a thin publishing record”

Bob, do I need to count all of these for you ? [9]——————————————————————DJT – Well, I’m, I’m sure that they’re going to keep you appraised just like they have in the past, just like Eric has done in the past

So

I mean, we’ll see what happens with the Japanese study [7]
======================================BB – “So let’s go back to this”

“How long will it take ?”

“How long will it take before you, the Japanese study’s interesting too because we should be able to find that in the Japanese science databases, and we can find, we can’t find it at all“

“We can’t find it anywhere”

“And, and those are in English, so it’s not a language problem“

“We can’t find that anywhere”

“We’ve asked”

“We asked Rick Schiff, for, for that study”

“And, and it hasn’t come to us“

“He is now I believe on the Board of Directors, over there”
——————————————————————1:50:00
——————————————————————BB – “He should have access to this”

“We can’t get it”
======================================Bob, did you ask:

4. Kurume University School of Medicine (Japan) Department of Surgery ?

5. Hideaki Tsuda ? [7]
======================================BB – “How how long will it take before you recognize that, nothing is forthcoming ?”

“How long would that take ?”
======================================DJT – Well that’s like me asking “How long is it going to take for y’all’s, y’all‘s Skeptics to respond to my questions ?”

Because y’all haven’t been forthcoming
======================================BB – “Well, I mean, were talking about a blog here“

“We’re talking about life”

“No, we’re talking about a blogger’s feelings in that case“

“In in this case we’re talking about, 1,000′s of patients, over the course of of of generations, you know”

“This is important stuff”

“This is not eh eh equating what’s happening to to patients with what’s happening to you is is completely off-kilter as far as I can tell“

“It’s nothing”

“It’s nothing like you not getting to say something on my web-site”

“You know”

“This is they they have thrown in with Burzynski, and they’ve trusted him, and he’s produced nothing“

“Nothing of substance”
——————————————————————1:51:00
——————————————————————BB – “Nothing that that has made all of that um, uh, n nothing th th th that uh his peers would take seriously”

“The other thing that that that strikes me now is that, you know, you you you you keep saying that, well Eric is going to to share things with you”

“Does it ever concern you eh uh eh occur to you that Eric might not be reliable ?”======================================Bob, do you want to have a contest to determine which of you is more “reliable” ?======================================DJT – Well, he gave you The Lancet information and he posted the e-mail in the movie, and Josephine Jones posted a copy of it [6]
======================================BB – “He then, and then he”

“And then he he, you know, the the the the dialogue that sprung up around that was, well see, he’s never going to get to get published”

“Well you’re just setting yourself up for wish fulfillment”

“You want him to be, persecuted, so you are ecstatic when he doesn’t get to publish, which is unfortunate for all the cancer patients, who really thought that one day, all the studies were going to be published”
——————————————————————1:52:00
======================================DJT – Well, y’all are free to, you know, claim that all you want, because I don’t always agree with Eric, and uh, he’s free to express his opinion
======================================BB – “Where has Eric been wrong ?”
======================================DJT – Well I don’t necessarily believe, what Eric would say about, you know, The Lancet that refused to publish the 2nd one, for the reasons he stated, and which y’all have commented on, including Gorski

You know, I don’t necessarily agree with that

I am more agreeable to y’all, saying that, you know, they’re busy, they’ve got other things to do, but I’m kind of still laughing at their 1st response which he showed in the movie about how they felt about, you know his results would be better in some other publication

I thought that was kind of a ridiculous response to give someone
======================================BB – “It’s it’s it’s it’s a form letter“

“You know”

“They’re just saying, “No thanks””

““Thanks, but no thanks” is what they were saying, in the most generic way possible”

“Like I said, they’re besieged by researchers trying to publish“
——————————————————————1:53:05
======================================DJT – Well you would think that if its a form letter they would use the same form that they used the 2nd time

You know, they didn’t use the same wording that they used the 1st time

I would have think that, you know, their 2nd comment
======================================BB – “So, so, possibly”

“So possibly what you are saying is that they in fact have read it, and after having read it they’ve rejected it”

“Is that what you’re saying ?”

“Because that’s what peer-review is”
======================================DJT – Nah, I’m not saying that they did that all

I’m just sayin’, you know, that they gave, 2 different responses, and I would think that the 2nd one they gave
======================================BB – “Do you know it was the same editor, that it came from the same desk ?”

“You can’t make that assumption that that the form letter will be the same form letter every time”

“I mean you just can’t“

“I mean in in some ways we have a lot of non-information that you’re filling in, with what you expect, as as opposed to what’s actually really there, and I I I just think you’re putting too much uh stock in one uh, uh, in in in in this uh the publication kerfuffle“
——————————————————————1:54:16
——————————————————————BB – “Um”
======================================DJT – Well I find it funny, something along the lines of, you know, “We believe your message would be received better elsewhere, you know

I don’t see that as a normal response, a scientific publication would send to someone trying to publish something

I mean, to me that sounds, like, if you’re doing that, and you’re The Lancet Oncology, maybe you need to set some different procedures in place, ‘cuz you would think that with such a great scientific peer-reviewed magazine, that they would have structured things in as far as how they do their operations
======================================BB – “Well, not necessarily“

“I’ve been in any # of professional groups where the organization is just not optimal, and publications certainly th there are all sorts of pressures from all sorts of different places”
——————————————————————1:55:08
——————————————————————BB – “I I have no problems whatsoever with seeing that this might not be completely uh um uh streamlining uniform processes as possible“

“The fact that it’s not uniform, doesn’t have anything to do with Burzynski not publishing, not producing good data”

“Not just going to a, you know, god, even if, even if, let’s put it this way, even if he went to a pay to play type publication where you have to pay in order to get your manuscript accepted; and he has the money to do this, it wouldn’t take that much, and he were to put out a good protocol, and he were to show us his data, and he would make his, his his stuff accessible to us, then we could validate it, then we could look at it and say, “Yeah, this is good,” or “No, this is the problem, you have to go back and you have to fix this””

“Right ?”

“So we really, every time we talk about the letter that he got, yeah that doesn’t have much to do with anything, really”
——————————————————————1:56:02
——————————————————————BB – “We wanna see the frickin’ data”

“And if he had a cure for some cancers that otherwise don’t have reliable treatments, he has an obligation to get that out there anyway he can“

“And if if peer-review doesn’t, you know, play a, if peer-review can’t do it, you know, isn’t fast enough for him, then he should take it to the web, and he should send copies out to every pediatric, uh, you know, oncologist that there is“

“That’s the way to do it”
======================================DJT – Well, I’m sure, I’m sure Gorski would have a comment about that, as he’s commented previously about how he thinks uh Burzynskishould publish
======================================1:57:10
——————————————————————BB – “It’s the, it’s the data itself“

“If if Burzynski is is, is confident in his data, he will put it out there“

“Right ?”

“One way or the other”
======================================DJT – Like I said before

Like I said before on my blog, you know, even if Burzynski publishes his phase 2 information, Gorski can just jump up and down and say, “Well, that just shows evidence of efficacy, you know, it’s not phase 3,so it doesn’t really prove it”
——————————————————————1:58:04
——————————————————————DJT – So then he can go on, you know, for however many years he wants to
======================================2:01:00
——————————————————————BB – “Um, almost no treatment goes out without trials“

“Massive amounts of data are required”======================================Bob, do you think that’s the 2.5 million pages of clinical trial data that Fabio said Burzynski sent to the FDA ? [10]======================================2:02:00
——————————————————————BB – “Uh, in in in that sense, you know, uh all the the the, you know, kind of back-peddling and and and trying to defend him is is going to, not going to help his case at all“
======================================Bob, exactly where did I exhibit any “kind of back-peddling” ?
======================================2:03:03
——————————————————————
BB – “You are, honestly as far as I can tell you are doing the um, you know, you’re you’re ah throwing up uh, uh, uh, you’re giving me another uh invisible dragon in the garage, um”
======================================DJT – Well y’all, y’all can call things what y’all want

I mean, y’all can give these, fallacy arguments and all that garbage that y’all like, because that’s what y’all like to talk about instead of dealing with the issues

“What you’re telling me is that you trust the FDA to to be able to tell you when he’s not doing, good science, but also that you don’t trust the FDA”

“Do you see an inherent conflict there ?”
======================================DJT – How did I say I, I didn’t trust them ?
======================================BB – “Well, when I, whenever I would ask about, like, why would these trials aren’t happening uh and, you know, you say well the the FDA’s arranged it“

“The FDA’s in control”

“They sign off on these things”

“But they’re they’re they’re they’re at the same that they’re, they’re trustworthy they’re also not trustworthy depending on what you need for the particular argument at the time“
——————————————————————2:05:12
——————————————————————BB – “You’re suggesting that they’re untrustworthy”
======================================DJT – No, I’m just sayin’ that I’ve raised questions and none of The Skeptics wanna to uh talk about ‘em [11]
======================================BB – “Do you know that the FDA pulled out of the prosecution ?”

“Did you know that the FDA pulled out of the prosecution um of his criminal case, because they were backing a researcher ?”======================================Bob, would that “researcher” be Dvorit D. Samid, who was in Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business (Part I) ?——————————————————————DJT – Well, we know a lot stuff they did, but that still doesn’t impress me that they pulled out of the prosecution

I mean
======================================BB – “Yeah, the the the it wasn’t the FDA who was pressing charges, it was a Federal prosecutor“
======================================DJT – Right
======================================BB – “Right”

“And and, they declined to provide information that the prosecution needed“

“That’s important”

“That that that’s really important“

“That he has been given the benefit of the doubt, and he has come up wanting, for decades now”
======================================DJT – Well I find it interesting a lot of this uh, a lot of these letters that were provided between, you know, the government and Burzynski, when the uh phase 2 study was going on, at the behest of the NCI

You know, anybody who reads that stuff knows, that when you just ignore the person that’s been doing, do treating their patients for 20 something years, or close to 20 years, and you change the protocol without his approval, and you don’t use the drugs in the manner that he knows works
======================================2:10:15
——————————————————————BB – “One of the interesting things about Doubting Thomas that I think you should definitely consider for yourself, is that at some point, when faced with the real opportunity to prove or disprove his assertions, he doubted himself”

“And that’s important”

“And that’s where you’re falling short in the analogy”
======================================DJT – Well, I think The Skeptics, Skeptics are falling short because, you know, they don’t own up to
======================================BB – “I’ve laid out exactly what it would take for me to turn on a fucking dime”

“I have, I have made it abundantly clear what I need“

“Gorski has made it abundantly clear”

“Everybody else, Guy, and David, and Josephine Jones, uh, the Morgans, all of them have made it abundantly clear, what it would take to change our minds, and you’ve never done that”
——————————————————————2:11:02
——————————————————————BB – “And even in this, this was an opportunity to do that“

“To come up with a basis for understanding, where it’s like, you know what, If we can show this, you know, if we can show a this guy, that, that, there, that his standards are not being met, then, you know, we could possibly have some sort of ongoing dialogue after this”
======================================DJT – So I can say that since the Mayo Clinic (Correction: M.D. Anderson) finished their study in 2006, and it took them until 2013, to actually publish it, then I can say, well, Burzynski finished his in 2009, which was 3 years later, which would give Burzynski until 2016
======================================BB – “Why wasn’t that study”
======================================DJT – for me to make up my mind (laughing)
======================================BB – “Why wasn’t that, that that that, still . . again, it it doesn’t seem really to to approach the the the, main question here“

“You know, um . . what are the standards that you have that it isn’t, what are your standards to show that it isn’t efficacious ?“
——————————————————————2:12:05
======================================DJT – Well I can say, well I’m going to have to wait, the same amount of time I had to wait for Mayo (Correction: M.D. Anderson) to publish their study; which was from 2006 to 2013
======================================BB – “Why was the Mayo”

“Why was the Mayo (Correction: M.D. Anderson) study delayed ?”======================================Note how Bob ASSUMES that the publishing of the final results of the M.D. Anderson study were delayed——————————————————————DJT – How do you know it was delayed ?
======================================BB – “Well you said you had so many years before you finish it and go in”
======================================DJT – I mean, has anybody
======================================BB – “Why, why did it take so long ?“
======================================DJT – done a review of when a clinical trial is studied, and completed, and how long it took the people to publish it ?

You know

If they could point to me a study that’s done that, and say, well here’s the high end, here’s the low end of the spectrum, here’s the middle
======================================BB – “I have something for you, okay ?”

“Send me that”

“Could you send me that study the way that it was published because um, just just send me the final study, um, to my e-mail address”
======================================DJT – Sure
======================================BB – “Um, because, I can ask that question of those researchers, why was this study in this time, and what happened in-between”
——————————————————————2:13:03
——————————————————————BB – “Why did it take so long for it, for it to come out”
======================================DJT – Sure, but that’s not gonna, you know like, answer an overall question of, you know, somebody did a comparative study of all clinical trials, and, when they were finished, and at, and when the study was actually published afterwards

“Um, but it it would, perhaps, answer the question; because you’re using it as an example on the basis of which to dismiss criticism, whether or not, uh, it is the standard, and therefor you’re allowed to accept that Burzynski hasn’t published until 2016, or, um, it’s an anomaly, which is also a possibility, that most stuff comes out more quickly“
======================================DJT – Well, we know that the Declaration of Helsinki doesn’t even give a standard saying, “You must publish within x amount of years,” you know ?

So, I’ve yet to find a Skeptic who posted something that said, “Here are the standards, published here”
======================================2:14:07
——————————————————————BB – “I I, yeah, the other thing that David James points out is you know, why 2016 when he’s had 36 years already ?“
======================================DJT – Again, we get back to, when the clinical trial is finished, not when Burzynski started
======================================BB – “Treating people”
======================================DJT – I mean, you would expect to find a results to be published after, the final results are in
======================================BB – “You would expect the Burzynski Patient Group to be a lot bigger after 36 years, and in fact is
======================================DJT – You would expect some people would want to have confidentiality, and maybe not want to be included
======================================BB – “So, if you’re unsure about this stuff, if you’re unsure about the the time to publication, why are you defending it so hard, other than saying, “I don’t know, I really need to”
======================================DJT – Why am I unsure ?
======================================BB – “Uh about the
======================================DJT – (laughing) I just gave you an example
======================================BB – “The reasons, the reasons for which that he’s, no, why are you defending him so hard, when you’re unsure ?
——————————————————————2:15:02
======================================DJT – Oh, who said I was unsure ?

I just gave you an example
——————————————————————Note how Bob ASSUMES that I’m “unsure” when I had the same answer since 0:32:07 [12]